Skip to main content

About your Search

20121003
20121003
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22
size would have the same spending obligations as laid out in the law, and he and i have had many conversations where he's made it clear where that was always his understanding, and late 2010, several workers and their advocates came to my office to explain that in their view, employers had found and were exploiting a loophole in the health and security ordinance, a small number of businesses of employers were voiding the majority of their spending requirement by allocating money to what is known as a health reimbursement account. often, using these accounts to severely restrict the types of services that the accounts could be used for often providing no notice of the existence of the accounts to their workers and then reclaiming the majority of money allocated to those accounts at the end of the year. we also discovered that many of these employers were profiting from the law by charging surcharges in the name of employee health care and then pocketing the majority of the money that was collected from consumers in san francisco. so, given that workers were not receiving the healt
or the observation of mr. warfield. and also the observation of mr. nee. because the sunshine law, 65.24 is far more clear than the public record section as defined in the state law. and i would like to point out that it says in section 67.36 of sunshine that, the ordinance supersedes all other local laws. this is the governing law of official conduct in san francisco. so if i go to the san francisco police department and i want to look at records of a case that is closed. i shouldn't have any problem from the san francisco police department saying no, we can't share any tape recordings with you. or we can't share any evidence that was collected both audio and video with you. where in fact if the case is closed, those are public records. specifically if i want to apply those to commissioner harris. this is important. and i am surprised you looking at me shocked. this is what you get if you spend 10 months on ross mirkarimi railroading him and 10 days trying to push this through. and it doesn't give us an idea of the information and i excuse me me mr. st. croix i was not able to read the documents of
law and sunshine ordinance and we're given the run around over illegal elections. there's millions of dollars being stolen by the councils, the residence councils. it's off the hook and nobody talks about it. i want to mention a couple of points on the rush through this process here. there's a pattern of rushing through the process. when the sunshine task force didn't have one member who is disables, they stop and when the ethics commission has miss mean ors going on and the meeting is not properly agendaed and ada violations are going on you have an obligation to stop the meeting until corrections can be made or you are under liability for ada lawsuit. this should be elementary in san francisco and in closure i want to come back to did you remove proceedings in the charter from the deal from the final document from fifteen dot one zero five? did i get that right? a. we haven't taken any action. speaker: okay thank you so much. this removal from office really needs to come forward especially when there's such an unequal application in the laws in this city. thanks. speaker: i'm not
of resources no non filers were being turned over and state laws and authorities are clearer than ours is because this is a state law. however, this wasn't being done so i failed to follow-up and make sure that my directions were being followed and in fact, the practice is to send a letter to filing and then to send a second follow-up letter. when the second letters came from my signature it was already mid-august and i thought it was done months ago and that's my failure to follow through on that and i'm taking full responsibility for that but the practice should be and in the future will be that first we send people late letters and we can assign them up to ten dollars a day for being late. beyond a certain amount of time beyond that we have to assume they don't intend to file and that's when we should be doing referrals but it shouldn't take six months speaker: i /paoerb that and i appreciate what life is like really on the ground /skpw taking responsibility for it. the back and forth of writing to somebody remains private and if they are tossing all the letters then we're stuck in
by federal law, it's not an easy solution, but the vast majority of san francisco businesses provide insurance and the vast, vast majority of son fra*ns businesses are spending required amounts of money, every survey and report by your agency show that and supervisor campos has acknowledge hated but there is an issue with some categories of business, but we're working together, small business associations, the chamber on educating employers and employees on the rights and obligations under this law. we've worked with television ads on cable television, the city, websites, direct communication with members, thousands of employers have been communicated with by our organizations and by the city to understand how to make this work for the employee and how to make it work financially for the employer because you have to remember in the last half a dozen years, the cost of small business to employ entry level workers in san francisco has gone up 50%. that is health mandate, sick leave, minimum wage, things we believe in, things that as san franciscans we support but things that have a tre
of noncompliance of the state law and should be a policy of the commission for that provision. that's one thing. and the other thing i wanted to point out is that the agenda for tonight did not include the minutes. just said that you were going to vote for the minutes. it would be nice if you could put that to the next meeting for those of us who have not seen those have a period to comment. thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioner hur and ethic commissioners. i am troubled that you scheduled my two cases on today's agenda. it's unethical for the ethics commission to even decide a case involving your own executive director. and the whole case should have been transferred to another jurisdiction. not just for developing a recommendation. but for holding any sort of public hearing on the matter. mr. chatfield, when he transferred my case to san jose. noted in the cover mail, quote, the ethic's commission regularly handles cases for the sunshine force act. and however cannot be (inaudible) as executive director is the named respondent in both claims, end quote. it should be argued that the ethic
.c. berkeley and hastings law school, bob joined a family firm and became active in numerous civic organizations, particularly within the jewish community as well as on our san francisco human rights commission. he also had a love of politics and successfully ran the mccarthy campaign for the board of supervisors. and i know that he will be missed dearly by the community and his family. my third in memoriam is for gary cray who is known by many in the telegraph hill community, my district, as the filbert steps gardner. gary tended to the gardens of the filbert steps, which is one of our city's great hidden treasures for more than three decades. and he took care of the sprawling garden as a volunteer. it was truly a labor of love for him and he was never paid a dime for t. he worked his hearts -- poured his heart into his work to create a clean, green and serene space that many in my neighborhood and throughout the city have grown to love and appreciate. in addition to caring for gardens, he was also someone who was dedicated to our city's architectural heritage and was a co-founder
is from before the change of law took effect that places restrictions on the ability to give us the health surcharge when we're not spending the money on health care, etc.. >> i'm matthew cohen. i'm glad to be before the supervisors, for one thing, this is the information we had, and when we saw this information, we found that even though we knew more information was going to come out subsequent to that, this is really indicative of a process which we felt was not something that you can merely look away from even with the amendment that was passed, and for one thing, i am kind of concerned that even though money is supposed to be set aside for workers and if you're using the hra's, if the private employers and a considerable amount of them employ their own accounts, this discourages employees from coming in and basically you're telling their employers what you need the medical expenses for, it's an invasion of privacy, i would rather, it's nothing we saw in the revised legislation that actually standardized guidelines, as far as we know, employers can still insist on whatever they can rest
's actually 6724 that defines what records must be disclosed. the state law into what public information is. >> so i need 6724. >> 6724. >> 6724 actually tells you what -- >> okay. put that on the list for now. that is a fairly important issue though i think. as we define what the public records are, we need to be confident we have that right. >> through the chair an additional point on l. misnumbered l. i will be really brief. >> really brief. >> at the tail end of the sentence it says that a willful violation of sunshine ordinance by elected official or department head occurredment i think you are continuing to drop the key phrase of 6734, that it's elected official department head or city managerial employee. and you should not drop the term, managerial here or throughout the rest of the proposed recommendation. >> okay. referral. means a written document from the task force to the commission initiating an ethics commission complaint. i think that definition can be modified to reflect that the referral is a document from the task force finding a violation of the sunshine ordinance. >> ea
without lawful business is prohibited on any sidewalks or ai jay -- property adjacent to licensed premises under control of licensee as depicted on the abc257. no noise shall be automobile beyond the area of control of the licensee as defined by the abc 257. petitioner shall utilize electronic surveillance and recording equipment that is able to view exits and entrance points of exterior of the premises. the surveillance recording shall be operational at all times of premises, open to the public. the electronic recording shall be maintained and kept for minimum of seven days and made available to law enforcement on demand, thank you. >> thank you. >> see nothing questions for you, mark, any comments on this one? >> yes. >> mr. chair, supervisors, i'm excited about . this there was an iconic bar on powell street that went through quite a traumatic episode and had to move down to the war f in the last year. much to the chagrin of the locals and san francisco. this we hope will be a replacement. this is now an off-sale liquor store. i did pass out a photograph of what mr. sirhed's place looks
are entrusting you with additional funds to you can go out and ensure that these laws we placed on the books are taken care of. >> and just a point on that, my understanding is that a lot of that money will deal with the backlog that olse has -- adding additional resources. >> we have a number of other departments, olse had a lengthier presentation, hopefully we can move more expeditiously in the other departments. so, we'll now move to the department of public health. welcome. >> thank you so much, supervisors, i want to give you a sense of the city option we've been talking about, then go into the department of public health response tos the civil grand jury report, so we used the term healthy san francisco broadly within san francisco, but we're really talking about from the department's perspective in terms of our response, the city option. that is the option that allows an employer to indicate that they would like to contribute dollars to the city and county of san francisco and their employees will get either eligibility for healthy san francisco and enroll in that program or their emp
of the day, so long as the law allows them to collect money and not necessarily spend it and you don't define expenditure the way we were trying to do, this is going continue to be a problem because there are ways that they're always going to be able to manipulate the wording of the surcharge, so i think that's a problem and i think that the d.a. only confirms what we've always said. >> president chu? >> i had two observations as i compared our city attorney's response to the same question, our city attorney said, yes, consumer fraud is committed, you clarified the burden of proof required in the criminal context from my perspective, i think that makes sense, these type of consumer fraud cases are pursued from our civil attorney, i wanted to make that first point, but secondly, i think what ms. crevette was saying, rather than having a surcharge for health care, they broaden that language and said it was a surcharge for the cost of doing business in san francisco, that's a very different set of issues and it might be a set of issue that is we may want to tackle at a later point but it gets us
that taking this together that this body of law gives you the authority to order disclosure of records. or that you have the power to order anything that it's limited to record, and more broadly enforcement. let me conclude with a couple other things. >> you it turn it back on. >> the votes of three commissioners are required. what happens when you only have four commissioners present? does that mean that the matter dies? it doesn't address that and has a presumption built in there somewhere. i am not sure if that makes sense. and more importantly in terms of the administrative orders. nothing in here suggested that the commission could make a finding that a violation is willful. and that's to me the most important thing in 3764. if a commission finds that an act is willful, it shall be deemed so. >> i don't think we have gotten there. >> no? >> you are talking about willful violations that are -- you are talking about willful violations based on findings that are made by the task force. okay. >> or made by the commission. in any event, a finding if you look at 64.34, if the commission
law, this could be have been a case under the recent amendment ts, this issue was addressed in a var iet of ways including posting and quarterly notice requirements so employees are aware of their benefits and how to use them and by requiring all unused monies to remain with the employee for 24 months, the law now requires that any benefit plan must be structured adds to be reasonably calculated to benefit the employee, olse has the authority to not be designed to benefit the employee and it should not be a qualified..[reading].. the new law that went into effect in january 1, 2012 pertains to that. they are administered by a third party according to to olse's data, 85% of employees use third party administrators or provide the type of benefit that would not be able to provide health information, many employers build in other safeguards that make sure that private health information remains confidential. and then with regards to the fourth response to recommendations around disallowing the use of employee hra options, i would recommend that it states it will not be implemented, the h
for everybody's edification, the reason the law came into existence, which is the law that set up the security plan, was because the ywca rented a place out for a birthday party, and a 15-year-old kid got shot because it wasn't a birthday party. >> thank you. and is there any public comment relating to this license application? okay. seeing none, the matter is with the commission. to
, it became law december 25th, christmas morning. okay. this is the same bill when it was going through. the yellow tag is from tom rivard who was our noise man. and who just recently retired, he basically wrote it. he sent it to me during -- when it was going through [speaker not understood], section 29 09 deals with your issues marked by green. all the best. tom rivard. and this is basically residential property noise. they can go, if you build something, remodel something, you can go five decibels above what we heard last night. that's noise. and on the other page it will say commercial places can go 8 decibels. and we know that when you go to 10 decibels, basically you're doubling the amount of noise. and we'll end today, that's the noise map of 2009. and the deeper colors, that's a lot of noise. that's a little noise. but it's all one [inaudible]. thank you. >> thank you very much. thank you. next speaker. >>> good afternoon, honorable board of supervisors. [speaker not understood] and i am [speaker not understood] living in the mission district in san francisco. if you are as tire
areas where it got out of sync with current law. one thing i know that has dragged on. i wanted to get it back before i left office. what you, what was distributed to you, we are not going to act on today. there's a requirement two week's notice before any change. this will come back at our next meeting for action. the changes in the red line strike out copy you have, so it takes the order of business and amends it to our current order business. one place where it has substance to it is the amount of notice we give for water rate changes. it actually shortens the time in the process making it winter with the board of supervisors policy. if we wanted to retain the older, longer time line, we certainly could choose to do that. couple comments. one of the reasons this hasn't come back sooner is because i haven't, just in being chair, i haven't noticed anything that wasn't there that i wished was. i don't think there needs to be something that needs to be fixed. our rules of order of very brief. they do not reference and are no bound by robert shules of order, you have a motion and a secon
. implementing the state redevelopment dissolution law. >> item 4, supervisor olague. aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos? aye. supervisor campos? no. president chiu? aye. supervisor chu aye. cohen aye. supervisor elsbernd? aye. supervisor kim? aye. supervisor mar? aye. there are 9 ayes and one no. >> the the ordinance is finally passed. item 5. >> item 5, ordinance appropriating $54 3.2 million from the proceed of sale of bonds for cap fail improvement projects to the airport commission for fiscal year 2012 through 2013 and placing appropriation and control is reserved pending the bond sale. >> roll call vote. >> on item 5, supervisor olague? aye. wiener? aye. supervisor avalos? aye. supervisor campos? aye. president chiu? aye. supervisor chu? aye. supervisor cohen? aye. supervisor elsbernd? aye. supervisor kim? kim aye. supervisor mar? aye. there are 10 ayes. >> the item is passed. the ordinance is finally passed. item 6. >> item 6 is an ordinance amending the transportation code to restrict large vehicle parking between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. from the municipal transp
? >> law enforcement >> [ [ laughter ] , no, you will have to come into the restaurant. >> >> after they left, did they run a dj as well? >> it did not work. >> they will sing love songs. >> some more cabaret? >> yes >> okay. piano lounge. >> any other questions from the commission? seeing none, any public comment? oh, mission station police department, would you like to comment on it? >> commissioners, commission station has reviewed the statement and we have no objection to the poe and we work forward to working with them and enjoying their great food. >> all right. any other questions for the police? okay. public comment? you can have a seat, if you want. >> good evening. hello. i'm ryan mcadam. i'm a condominium owner at 2027 market, which is one of the residences that is situated above the restaurant space. i purchased the property there in 2004, and i remember in 2006 when mr. steve webber came before the commission making very, very similar promises. and i can tell you that in fall of 2008, my life at home was nothing short of a living hell. i mean, there was base,
and the brown act. state laws and not just sunshine. they have to show the cause there. they would have done that. so the hearing process already done. the evidence is there. the show-cause is this. it's already in the minutes and already in the orders of determination. no need to repeat it. i think what is important here is [buzzer] after all of that is said and done, your deliberations is what is the enforcement. first get them to do what they were supposed to do. and if they don't do it, that could be considered willful failure and you can move forward. okay, am i making sense? >> you are. except when we met, this was the compromise situation we came to. we were not willing just to enforce. but the idea that we give the task force the presumption, have a show-cause hearing at which the respondent would be required and have the burden of proof to show why a violation did not occur. and then we would make a decision. so you know, i understand your point. and you made that argument when we met. and i respect it. but the decision that we as the commission made, we were going to have this kind
being evicted out of the city of san francisco in terms of the laws that they lay, what they're, the arrogance of their position. when you have the residents go before them because they are not being, they are not under the eye of observation. then you really see the bad side of why you need to bring this organization to the light where they could be observed. i think it's a good thing but by the same, we need it done like 25 years ago. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> my name is [inaudible] ladies and gentlemen. the history goes back to 25 years ago to the housing authority and my statement i have been using at your commission for years, ain't no mystery, check your history. ladies and gentlemen, there's deeper history in what we're talking about with the city government channel. i'm the one that started that, i'm not going to get the hand for that because of same things the housing authority tenants went through 20 years ago. ladies and gentlemen, i am happy, tickled not pink by black right now because most of the tenants are african-americans. i stand
in the city and county of san francisco. that plan is mandated by state law and its purpose is to really figure out what the transportation needs for the city long-term are. and, so, i think it's important for us to begin the discussion of what those needs are, what the future looks like, and what the challenges in meeting the needs that the city has and will have, what those challenges will be. we need to think about this issue and specifically focus on ways in which we can bring revenue into the system, the kinds of investments that need to be made not only by the county transportation authority, but other agencies like the san francisco mta. i look forward to a substantive discussion. and again, this is the beginning of this discussion and we know that we will have additional discussions that will take place. i also want to note that because of the good work of our staff at the authority, we recently received some money on the planning front. we actually received half a million dollars from caltrans, a planning grant and it's a grant that will allow for work to be done in various neig
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22